260
submitted 7 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago

Have yet to see any of these 'studies' take into account and compare with natural meteorite effects, which are orders of magnitude larger than the satellites.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 20 points 7 months ago

Are you just doing the thing where you cast doubt on journal articles because they feel wrong? You don't think humans can affect the natural environment in such a way? This sounds oddly familiar and a bit ironic for this community....

Meteors aren't made out of aluminum like satellites are btw. There will be more reasearch done and we will learn more. But for now, there's a potential issue.

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-satellite-megaconstellations-jeopardize-recovery-ozone.amp

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

Meteors aren't made out of aluminum

Aluminium is an element, it's going to be present in meteors to the same extent it is on earth

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

That's not the comparison at all, the comparison is what the sattelites are made of (mostly aluminum) and what the meteors are made of (mostly other stuff, like earth).

[-] Axxys@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Is that a thing? Meteors content matching Earths?

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

Though it looks like the community hive mind has made up its mind on this one

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

Logic would dictate that that is likely, though that statement itself isn't scientific. Do you have any sources to back that up? I could see a possibility where, perhaps, certain elements are more likely to coalesce into planetary bodies, and others into meteoroids. It could also depend on the location in the solar system where the formation occurred — the primordial dust cloud that made up the infant solar system, I would wager, would be far from uniform.

[-] Brgor@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago

I did some very rough estimates and found that the amount of aluminum entering the Earth's atmosphere each year is probably between 100 and 500 tons, which would be roughly comparable to the amount coming from these LEO comm sats like Starlink.

These are just super ballpark figures, but it's in the same order of magnitude. More research is definitely necessary.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

They won't, it's just musk hate. I can't stand the idiot either, but starlink has done more for rural and underserved homes than all the telcoms have in the last 30 years.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 20 points 7 months ago

It may be true that Starlink is a great service, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point of the article and any ozone destruction that the satellites cause.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Way more tons of meteorites burn up entering the atmosphere than the amount of shit starlink will even remotely produce.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 15 points 7 months ago

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-satellite-megaconstellations-jeopardize-recovery-ozone.amp

The issue is that meteorites don't have hardly any aluminum, which is the metal of concern here. We're already seeing significant increases in the upper atmospheric concentration, and it's projected to get a lot worse.

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

Meteorites do contain aluminum. The issue is with the concentration of aluminum in the atmosphere, as well as its rate of increase. If there's an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites accompanied by an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere, then it's certainly fair to consider that the two are correlated. This is especially so if there is no increase in the burn up of objects from any natural source — eg meteors.

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

Hm, while the presence of the elements in question in the atmosphere could be naturally occurring, what's important to consider for this discussion is the rate of their increase. If there's an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere that correlates with an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites with no related increase in the rate of meteors, then its likely that the artificial satellites were indeed the culprit.

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
260 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5663 readers
248 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS